Bradley A. Thayer is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Minnesota—Duluth.
I am grateful to Mlada Bukovansky, Stephen Chilton, Christopher Layne, Michael Mastanduno, Roger Masters, Paul Sharp, Alexander Wendt, Mike Winnerstig, and Howard Wriggins for their helpful comments. I thank Nathaniel Fick, David Hawkins, Jeremy Joseph, Christopher Kwak, Craig Nerenberg, and Jordana Phillips for their able research assistance. Finally, I wish to acknowledge the generous support of the Earhart Foundation, and Ingrid Merikoski and Antony Sullivan in particular, and the University of Minnesota, which allowed me to complete my research.
1. See Edward O. Wilson, Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge (New York: Knopf, 1998).
2. Wilson has pursued this goal since 1975, most recently in ibid., pp. 8-14, 197-228; Roger D. Masters, "The Biological Nature of the State," World Politics, Vol. 35, No. 2 (January 1983), pp. 189-190; and Albert Somit, "Human Nature as the Central Issue in Political Philosophy," in Elliott White, ed., Sociobiology and Human Politics (Lexington, Mass.: D.C. Heath, 1981), pp. 167-180.
3. Ethology—the study of animal behavior—is significant as well, particularly the concept of evolutionary stable strategies, which was introduced by J. Maynard Smith and G.R. Price, "The Logic of Animal Conflict," Nature, November 2, 1973, pp. 15-18. This has informed such important scholarship as Robert Axelrod and William D. Hamilton's finding of the importance of reciprocation or tit-for-tat strategies for cooperation. See Axelrod and Hamilton, "The Evolution of Cooperation," Science, March 27, 1981, pp. 1390-1396; Robert Axelrod, The Evolution of Cooperation (New York: Basic Books, 1984), chap. 3; and John Maynard Smith, Evolution and the Theory of Games (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1982).
4. Kenneth N. Waltz, Theory of International Politics (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1979).
5. For the sake of simplicity, I discuss the "evolutionary process" even though four processes are actually at work: random genetic drift, migration, mutation, and natural selection. For discussion of these processes, see Theodosius Dobzhansky, Genetics of the Evolutionary Process (New York: Columbia University Press, 1970); John Maynard Smith, The Theory of Evolution (Harmondsworth, United Kingdom: Penguin, 1958); Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought: Diversity, Evolution, and Inheritance (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1982); and Elliott Sober, Philosophy of Biology (Boulder, Colo.: Westview, 1993). Sexual selection is sometimes considered a fifth mechanism of evolution. See Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex, Vol. 1 (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1981[1871]), pp. 256-279.
6. I stress that they are critical components but not the totality of the realist argument. In addition, evolutionary theory can be used to explain other types of human behavior.
7. Both will improve the theory. On the desirability of constructing verifiable scientific explanations, see Gary King, Robert O. Keohane, and Sidney Verba, Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1994), p. 15. Stephen Van Evera argues that better theories have broad explanatory range. See Van Evera, Guide to Methods for Students of Political Science (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1997), p. 18.
8. Gideon Rose also does this by combining elements of realism and neorealism. Rose, "Neoclassical Realism and Theories of Foreign Policy," World Politics, Vol. 51, No. 1 (October 1998), pp. 144-172.
9. Roger D. Masters, The Nature of Politics (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1989); Irenäus Eibl-Eibesfeldt, Human Ethology (New York: Aldine de Gruyter, 1989); and Wilson, Consilience, pp. 8-14, 197-228. See also Richard D. Alexander, The Biology of Moral Systems (New York: Aldine de Gruyter, 1987); and Francis Fukuyama, The Great Disruption: Human Nature and the Reconstitution of Social Order (New York: Free Press, 1999).
10. Masters, "The Biological Nature of the State," pp. 185-189.
11. Albert Somit and Steven A. Peterson, Darwinism, Dominance, and Democracy: The Biological Bases of Authoritarianism (Greenwich, Conn.: Praeger, 1997). See also Laura L. Betzig, Despotism and Differential Reproduction: A Darwinian View of History (New York: Aldine de Gruyter, 1986).
12. I do not critique these arguments here. Both theorists have been widely criticized, perhaps most perceptively by Kenneth N. Waltz...